1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to the management and conservation of irrigation water, primarily for, but not limited to, residential, commercial, and municipal landscaping applications, and more particularly to methods and apparatus for adjusting irrigation schedules using simplified temperature based water budgeting methods that use local environmental and geographic data and/or implementations adapted for time of use watering restrictions.
2. Description of the Prior Art
Many regions of the United States lack sufficient water resources to satisfy all of their competing agricultural, urban, commercial and environmental needs. The “California Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160-98,” published by the California Department of Water Resources using 1995 calendar year data, estimated that approximately 121.1 million acre feet (maf) of water is needed to satisfy the annual water needs of the State of California alone. Of this amount, approximately forty-six percent is required for environmental purposes, forty-three percent for agricultural purposes, and eleven percent (approximately 13.3 maf) for usage in urban areas. The Bulletin further estimated that California suffers a shortage of 1.6 maf during normal years, and 5.1 maf in drought years. These shortages are expected to increase steadily through the year 2020 due to expected significant increases in the state population.
At the Feb. 17, 2004, EPA-sponsored “Water Efficient Product Market Enhancement Program” in Phoenix, Arizona, for landscaping irrigation systems and controllers, it was projected that thirty-six states will have severe water shortages by the year 2010. A significant portion of this projected shortage was attributed to user neglect and irrigation controller inefficiency. The 2003 California census revealed that there were over twenty million single family residences and apartments within the state. The California Urban Water Conservation Council estimated that the average household utilized one-half acre foot of water (162,500 gallons) annually, and that fifty-five percent (89,375 gallons) of this amount was used for landscape irrigation. It further estimated that approximately one-third of the irrigation water was wasted, either due to inefficient irrigation systems or inadequate controller programming, oftentimes due in part to complicated controller programming procedures required of the operator. This results in a total annual waste of 1.81 maf of water for California households alone. Excessive water usages in municipal and commercial areas, golf courses and schools further contribute to the water shortage.
Such water shortages have forced many municipalities to enact strict water conservation measures. Two such measures include strongly encouraging the use of irrigation controllers that can adjust themselves to changing weather conditions, or instituting limitations of allowed watering days (Time-Of Use or TOU restrictions) during the various seasons. Some communities have also required the installation of water meters and auditors to enforce those schedules. Commercial and environmental users have enacted similar measures. For its part, the agricultural industry has responded to this shortage by resorting to drip, micro, and other low volume irrigation systems. However, there is no consensus to date among these various consumers, water agencies, manufacturers, or state or federal government entities as to the most effective water conservation method or automated control system.
Residential and commercial irrigation consumers are responsible for a significant percentage of wasted water. A report entitled “Water Efficient Landscaping” by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), dated September 2002, publication number EPA832-F-02-002, states the following: “according to the U.S. Geological Survey, of the 26 billion gallons of water consumed daily in the United States (Amy Vickers, 2002 “Handbook of Water Use and Conservation”), approximately 7.8 billion gallons, or 30% is devoted to outdoor uses. The majority of this is used for landscaping”
A significant reason for this over-utilization of landscape water was revealed in a marketing study conducted by the Irrigation Association (IA) and presented at the 2003 IA “Smart Water Application Technology” conference in San Diego, Calif. The study indicated that most consumers typically adjust their irrigation schedule only two to five times per year, rather than on a daily or weekly basis, regardless of changes in environmental conditions. The relatively high cost of labor in many municipalities further prohibits frequent manual adjustments of irrigation controllers. This generally results in over-irrigation and runoff, particularly during the off-seasons, oftentimes by as much as one to two hundred percent.
Soil moisture sensing devices and other methods of water conservation, have been available for decades, but have enjoyed only limited success. Such devices and methods generally call for inserting moisture sensors into the soil to measure the soil moisture content. Newer soil moisture sensing technologies have more recently been developed, and claim to be theoretically accurate in measuring plant water needs. However, regardless of the level of technology, such devices and methods are often problematic due to the location and number of sensors necessary to obtain accurate soil moisture readings, the high costs of installing and maintaining the sensors, and the integrity and reliability of the sensors' data.
Virtually all irrigation controllers and add-on modules utilize meteorological data to estimate the evapotranspiration, or ET, for a particular region. Some of these controllers and add-on modules are manufactured by Aqua Conserve, Weathermatic, Rain Master, ET Water Systems, and Hydro Point, among others, whose ET methods were reviewed by the Bureau of Reclamation in their May 2004 report entitled “Weather Based Technologies for Residential Irrigation Scheduling”, updated in 2006. This ET represents the amount of water needed by plants to replace water lost through plant absorption and evaporation, and is expressed in inches or millimeters of water per day. The United States Food and Agriculture Office (USFAO), in its Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24, entitled “Crop Water Requirements,” noted that “a large number of more or less empirical methods have been developed over the last fifty years by numerous scientists and specialists worldwide to estimate ET from different climatic variables.”
There are at least 15 different ET formulas. Each of these formulas provides a different result for the reference ET (ETo). In their paper entitled “Methods to Calculate Evapotranspiration: Differences and Choices,” Diego Cattaneo and Luke Upham published a four-year comparison of four different ETo formulas — The Schwab, Tool box, Formula box, and Penman-Monteith. Using the same four year data but different weather parameters and ET algorithms, the four theoretical ET calculations show results that vary by as much as seventy- percent (See FIG. 8) during certain times of the year.
Irrespective of these variations, the Penman-Monteith formula (which varies the most from the other three equations) is currently recognized as the “standard” by both the USFAO and California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS), with variances of less than twenty percent from this ET considered acceptable. The Penman-Monteith formula is as follows:
  ETo  =                    Δ        ⁡                  (                      Rn            -            G                    )                            λ        [                  Δ          +                      Y            ⁡                          (                              1                +                                  CdU                  ⁢                                                                          ⁢                  2                                            )                                            +                  y        ⁢                                  ⁢                  37                      Ta            +            273.16                          ⁢        U        ⁢                                  ⁢        2        ⁢                  (                      Es            -            Ea                    )                            Δ        +                  Y          ⁡                      (                          1              +                              CdU                ⁢                                                                  ⁢                2                                      )                              
The variables within this formula represent the following:                ETo=grass reference evapotranspiration in millimeters per day.        Δ=slope of saturation vapor pressure curve kPa° C. at the mean air temperature.        Rn=net radiation (MJm−2h−1).        G=soil heat flux density (MJm−2h−1).        Y=psychrometric constant (kPa° C.).        Ta=mean hourly air temperature (° C.).        U2=wind speed at two meters (m s−1).        Es=saturation vapor pressure (kPa) at the mean hourly air temperature        Ea=actual vapor pressure (kPa) at the mean hourly air temperature in ° C.        λ=latent heat of vaporization (MJkg−1).        Cd=bulk surface resistance and aerodynamics resistance coefficient.        
The simplest ET formula is the Hargreaves formula proposed by the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Its equation is described in the College's Fact Sheet Engineer's Notebook No. 106, published May 1997, in an article entitled “[a] Simple Evapotranspiration Model for Hawaii,” as follows:ETo=0.0135(T+17.18)Rs 
The variables within this formula represent the following:                ETo=potential daily evapotranspiration in mm/day.        T=mean daily temperature (° C.).        Rs=incident solar radiation converted to millimeters of water per day (MJ).        
This formula relies upon the same ET theories and interrelationships as the other formulas disclosed above. As described herein, such reliance causes the Hargreaves formula to possess the same shortcomings as the other ET formulas.
In view of the significant discrepancies between various ET equations, as noted, the question is, which, if any, of these equations is the most accurate ET, or are they all merely theoretical estimations? The herein proposed invention is not so much theoretical as a practical and user-friendly alternative approach to water conservation with greater potential to save real rather than theoretical water.
In an October 2005 Assembly bill 2717 task force meeting in Sacramento, Calif., the state Department of Water Resources (DWR) was asked for their definition of “Smart” controllers. The DWR described “Smart” in the same manner as the Irrigation Association, the Center for Irrigation Technology, and the EPA, in that a smart controller is capable of adjusting itself daily based upon the time of the year and the current environmental conditions and that smart technology is not limited to ET controllers. A number of irrigation controller manufacturers currently offer ET based controllers. Several of them obtain the environmental data to calculate ET from historical records, while others utilize adjacently located weather stations to obtain real-time data. Others receive such information from a network of existing weather stations by radio, satellite or pager means for a monthly fee. The Irrigation Association announced at their November 2005 conference SWAT meeting in Phoenix, Ariz. that the Center for Irrigation Technology is continuing to test all climatologically based water saving systems to include ET, ground moisture sensing, and other types of smart technology.
The following U.S. patents all disclose various methods by which an irrigation controller calculates or adjusts an irrigation schedule based upon historical, distal, or local ETo: U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,962,522; 5,097,861; 5,208,855; 5,479,339; 5,696,671; 6,298,285 and 6,314,340. All of these methods calculate ETo values or receive them from external sources, and use such values to adjust and regulate irrigation. Such external sources may be CIMIS ET databases, local sensors, cable lines or broadcast stations. Several of these methods also utilize other data, such as precipitation.
Unfortunately, methods incorporating ET formulas, and the installation, comprehension and programming of controllers utilizing such methods, including those cited in the referenced patents above, are far too complex for the average user to understand and implement. Such a conclusion was reached in a recent study of ET controllers by the Irvine Ranch Water District, entitled “Residential Weather Based. Irrigation Scheduling Study.” The study stated the following: “The water agency solution to date has been to conduct residential audits, leaving the homeowner with a suggested watering schedule, hoping it would then be followed. These programs have had limited effect and a short-term impact. A preferred solution would be to install irrigation controllers that automatically adjust watering times based on local weather conditions. Unfortunately, until now, these large landscape control systems have been far too complex and expensive for residential applications.”
Such complexity is underscored by the one hundred forty-five principal symbols and acronyms identified by the USFAO for use and description of the factors and variables related to ET theory and its various formulas, covering such variables as: the capillary rise; the resistance correction factor; the soil heat capacity; the psychrometer coefficient; and the bulk stomatal resistance of a well-illuminated leaf. The sheer number of variables renders ET theory difficult to explain, understand and apply, especially for an unsophisticated consumer with little or no scientific or meteorological background. For example, the manual for one ET-based controller currently on the market comprises over one hundred fifty pages of instructions and explanations. Such unfamiliarity and complexity increase the margins of error already associated with the various ET formulas, further diminishing their effectiveness.
Water districts, irrigation consultants, manufacturers, the Irrigation Association, the Center for Irrigation Technology and other attendees at the EPA's Water Efficient Product Market Enhancement Program estimated that, due to the complexity, cost, impracticality of installation and difficulty in programming current irrigation controllers, less than one percent of all commercial and residential landscape irrigation systems currently and effectively utilize some form of the ET or moisture sensing method. To further emphasize this lack of acceptance, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Water District that serves 3.5 million households reports less than 0.3% conversion to ET based controllers either provided free of charge or up to 100% rebated. The Southern Nevada Water Authority that serves Clark County, Nev. reports that over nearly a three year period of rebates, fewer than 200 such “smart” based controllers have been rebated. Such paltry adoption exists despite over fifty years of ET research, and over thirty years of ground moisture sensing technology. The magnitude of such ineffectiveness is underscored by the fact that there are over two million new controllers installed annually in the United States alone, and fifty million controllers in use today. Even if the ET or ground moisture sensing methods provided one hundred percent efficiency, which they do not, the limited adoption of these methods renders them an ineffective means of significant water conservation, since less than one percent of the runoff and water waste would be prevented under perfectly-efficient conditions.
A second shortcoming of the ET method is its dependence upon numerous categories of local, real-time meteorological data. As indicated above, many variables must be measured in order to calculate ET. Data for each variable must be obtained by separate sensors, each one installed in a particular location. Such particularity requires an understanding of local environmental conditions and meteorology. Furthermore, accuracy requires that the data be received from local sensors. Given the numerous microclimates existing within any one geographical area, data received from remotely located sensors may be inaccurate. The data must also be received and processed in real-time, since average or historical ET data may be inaccurate during periods of unusual or excessive heat, cold, or rain, or other deviations from historical climate patterns. Any inaccurate data would result in even greater ET deviations and inefficient irrigation.
ET measuring devices are generally also expensive to install and maintain. Sensors or weather stations must be placed within each microclimate to measure the different variables utilized by the formula of choice. Each weather station may cost up to several thousand dollars. Furthermore, all of these sensors or stations must undergo regular inspection, maintenance and calibration to insure that they continue to provide accurate data. This further increases the actual cost of each station. The sensors and stations must also be powered in some manner—depending upon the particular geographic location, AC power may not be readily available. All of these considerations increase the cost of implementing an ET-based irrigation system to a prohibitive level, and limit the widespread adoption of this method. Finally, all of this assumes that the weather station or sensors is even installable in a particular area. Some areas, such as street medians or parks, are not suitable for weather station or sensor installation due to aesthetic reasons or the likelihood of vandalism.
Another shortcoming of ET-based controllers is that all of the ETo formulas (including the Hargreaves formula) are generally expressed in hundredths of an inch, or millimeters, of water per day. Thus, ETo must be converted to an actual irrigation time of minutes. Such a conversion is dependent upon the characteristics of the particular hydraulic system, such as the valve sizes, water flow rates, and sprinkler or drip irrigation precipitation rates. One conversion formula, proposed by the Austin (Texas) Lawn Sprinkler Association, calculates the sprinkler run time in minutes (T) as follows:
  T  =            60      ×      ETo      ×      Kc              Pr      ×      Ea      
The variables within this equation represent the following:                ETo=reference evapotranspiration rate, in inches.        Kc=the percentage crop coefficient.        Pr=the sprinkler precipitation rate, in inches per hour.        Ea=the percentage application efficiency of the hydraulics system.        
As an example of such complexity, the crop coefficient (Kc) is different for each crop or landscape plant or grass type. Determining the precipitation rate (Pr) requires knowledge of the hydraulic system specifications—the particular types of valves and sprinklers, the number of valves and sprinklers within the system, the water flow rate and operating pressure and an actual measurement of each type of water delivery sprinkler, bubbler, or dripper. Such information is not readily available to the average consumer. Instead, the consumer must expend additional time and money to retain an irrigation expert to configure and install the system.
Another ET-to-irrigation-time conversion method, the ‘deficit irrigation practice,’ was proposed by the IA Water Management Committee in Appendix G of its October 2002 article entitled “Turf and Landscape Irrigation Best Management Practices.” This conversion method comprised ten separate formulas, and utilized a total of twenty-nine variables and constants, not including those utilized in calculating the ET value. Many of these variables represented concepts and relationships difficult for the average irrigation designer, much less a consumer, to understand, such as: the local landscape coefficient for the particular vegetation; available water depending upon the particular soil composition; allowable water depletion rate from the root zone; maximum percentage allowable depletion without plant stress; the water management factor necessary to overcome water management inefficiency; the whole day stress-based irrigation interval; water flow rates for the particular system; and, of course, ET.
Due to the urgency arising from severe national drought and environmental conditions, and the shortcomings of the various present technologies, the irrigation industry is currently researching alternative methods for water conservation and prevention of unattended runoff. The Center for Irrigation Technology in Fresno, Calif., recently renamed as the Irrigation Center for Water Technology (ICWT) along with other educational and research institutions and water conservation agencies, is conducting studies evaluating various water conservation methods. On the national level, the EPA is considering the introduction of a “WaterSense” irrigation efficiency rating program similar to the “EnergyStar” rating system currently in use for equipment energy efficiency. The purpose of such an irrigation efficiency rating program is to promote consumer awareness and compliance as an alternative to nationally and regionally mandated water conservation measures which would severely and negatively impact the irrigation industry, landscape aesthetics and the ecology.
It is clear from the foregoing discussion that the irrigation water management industry, in view of a politically and economically sensitive, and urgent, water crisis, is pursuing highly scientific, mathematical and/or theoretical approaches for resolving the problems of wasted irrigation water and drought conditions. Unsurprisingly, such approaches have met with limited success. The EPA, United States Department of Energy (DOE), Bureau of Reclamation, ecologists, environmentalists, municipalities, water agencies, research institutions, irrigation consultants, and manufacturers, are all searching for new methods that provide practical (as opposed to theoretical) improved irrigation efficiency—methods that overcome the particular shortcomings of the prior art.
The California Assembly bill 2717 task force established to propose new regulation concerning landscape irrigation has recommended that all irrigation controllers installed by the year 2010 be “smart”. Their definition of a “smart” controller is not limited to ET controllers. Instead, they define a “smart” controller as one that is capable of adjusting itself daily based upon local weather conditions and proven capable by means of third party testing (such as offered by the ICWT) to provide enough water for a healthy landscape by maintaining an adequate root zone water supply with minimal (if any) waste or runoff. The resulting assembly bill 1881 was passed into law, and now requires that all controllers sold or installed in California after Jan. 1, 2012 be “smart.”
Landscape water conservation also provides additional benefits. As noted by the EPA in its “Water Efficient Landscaping” guidelines, landscape water conservation also results in “decreased energy use (and air pollution associated with its generation) because less pumping and treatment of water is required and reduced runoff of storm water and irrigation water that carries top soils, fertilizers, and pesticides into lakes, rivers, and streams, fewer yard trimmings, reduced landscaping labor and maintenance costs, and extended life for water resources infrastructures (e.g. reservoirs, treatment plants, groundwater aquifers), thus reduced taxpayer costs.” Thus, there is an urgent need for irrigation systems that conserve water and energy, and minimize negative impact upon the environment, by automatically adjusting their schedules periodically in response to meteorological and seasonal changes.
The problem of irrigation mismanagement, and the main hurdle faced by these entities, can be simply summarized as follows: once a system is properly designed, most of the wasted landscape irrigation water and runoff is caused by not adjusting for daily, periodic, or seasonal changes. For example, in California, most homeowners and municipalities continue to irrigate their system in the fall based upon the summer schedule until the first rain storm of the year occurs followed by a sharp drop in temperature. If the summer schedule is assumed to be 100%, and November irrigation actually only requires, for example, about 20% of summer irrigation to satisfy the vegetation needs, this means that as much as 80% of the water is wasted in the fall. Such inaction is usually caused by the complexity and difficulty of determining the particular adjustment amounts and the significant inconvenience of daily adjustments.
As an alternative to costly and impractical to install weather stations, some manufacturers are offering an ET service that broadcasts the daily ET signal by means of a satellite or pager system. An example of this approach is the AccuWater system which takes weather data collected through a private network of weather stations and or sensors. Another example is the HydroPoint Weather TRAK that requires every controller to have a receiver that either receives ET that affects the controller irrigation programming, or one that receives separate weather sensor data that is then calculated locally into an ET value (such as provided by Irrisoft with its Weather Reach Receiver). A typical residential controller costs less than $100, with some as low as $20. The least expensive functional “smart” controller on the market today retails for $298. Homeowners do not wish to pay a monthly fee ranging from $4-$12 a month for the life of a service fee based controller in addition to the much higher priced smart controllers.
As discussed in provisional patent applications 60/831,904 and 60/899,200 (which are incorporated herein by this reference), many communities also have water pumping and delivery issues due to drought and increasing population and demand on the infrastructure delivering that water. Many of those communities have enacted limitations on watering schedules in order to minimize the demand on those facilities. By limiting landscape irrigation to certain times of the day and by either even or odd street address designations, or by watering groups such as designated by the SNWA (Southern Nevada Water Authority) as shown in FIG. 21. In this case, watering is allowed every day during the summer, but not between the hours of 11 AM and 7 PM to minimize evaporation and high peak demand periods. During the spring and fall, irrigation is permitted any time of day, but only three times a week depending upon the assigned watering group. In the winter, only one watering day per week is permitted. Fines are issued for multiple offenders. However, this method is difficult to police because there are 500,000 customers in Clark County, Nevada, so many users commonly violate these rules. It is inconvenient for the homeowner, for example, to remember to change the watering schedule at least 4 times a year, particularly if they are not familiar with the programming of the controller. The SNWA estimates that after 5 years of public education and rules “enforcement”, has resulted in 30% compliance. While not great, this is far better in terms of saving real water and easing infrastructure demands than rebated ET based controllers or ground moisture sensors have shown to date.
With ET related complexities and frequent disregard for watering time of use rules, a simple, intuitive solution would be highly preferred over the existing highly theoretical and technical, but impractical, state of the art ET-based and ground moisture sensing control systems and dependence upon human manual compliance with restricted watering schedules.
It is therefore desirable to provide a simple, user-intuitive, and therefore readily accepted water conservation approach, particularly for a clearly understood automated method of calculating and implementing irrigation schedules. It is further desirable to provide a method that does not necessarily rely upon ground or air moisture sensing means, weather stations, or ET (either directly, or as a basis for deriving the sprinkler operating times). It is further desirable to provide a method that minimizes the margins and sources of errors by minimizing the number of sensor inputs required by the variables in the formula. It is further desirable to provide a method that utilizes minimal local, real-time meteorological data that is not ET based. It is further desirable that such a method be cost-efficient, affordable, installable, and usable by a large number of people and entities within the irrigation industry with the widest range of applications possible. It is further desirable that such a method be understandable by the average consumer. It is further desirable that such a method be accomplished automatically, without requiring regular manual adjustments by the operator of the irrigation watering time settings or schedules. It is also desirable that temperature budgeting be adaptable to time of use restrictions established by various communities or water agencies.